20/20 recently ran a report that Matthew Shepard was not killed in a hate crime* but was robbed for drug money. I don’t know what to think of this. I glad these guys are in prison either way - killing someone for money seems like as bad a reason to kill someone as if they are gay. But still I can’t help but wonder what the motivation is to bring this story out now? Is it to attack hate crime legislation? So do think it was just an attempt to get drug money that went wrong or a hate crime?
Whose motivation are you curious about? If 20/20, I seriously doubt they have an “anti-hate-crime-law” agenda, and seriously suspect that they have a “pro scoop agenda.”
If the killers – short-term motivation? Notoriety. A day or two out of the cellblock. Constantly being written to by flattering journalists (apparently you can have quite a time basking in the warm glow of suck-up media entreaties, which are probably a fun respite from the boredom of prison, if you’re a sufficiently-notorious con.
Cons are also notorious for loving to tell their life stories. There’s a reason jailhouse snitches are so ubiquitous: criminals like to be the center of attention by telling stories.
Also – wasn’t the spin that this is their first chance to tell the real story, because while they were arrested/on trial they couldn’t really speak at all (“couldn’t” in the sense that almost any good criminal defense lawyer will put a lid on his clients to prevent cross-examination)? So this is the first time they can really (1) admit forthrightly that they were the killers, or (2) that they supposedly thought they were killing for meth (it’s not clear from the article that they testified, but one of the defenses was based on arguing that the defendant was freaked out by a homosexual advance and overreacted – which may have seemed the less-unpromising of the alternatives available to the defense team at the time). Now that “they’ve got nothing to lose,” they’re talking (actually, I think they do have something to lose, as I seem to remember a gag order binding one or both of them, but I don’t know if the State will try to punish them further).
Dunno on the evidence I’ve seen so far; haven’t seen the trial transcripts. I’d be inclined to break the tie by saying there are more stupid yahoos-in-the-street motivated to kill for money/drugs than for “hate,” but it’s an open question I guess.
This duo sound like nobody’s idea of prize specimens, however you slice it.
From what I’ve read, the two were long time crystal addicts and were so hopped up at the time, I’m surprised they can make sense of what their real motivations may have been at the time.
So, if it wasn’t really a hate crime (if their ultimate motivation was NOT to beat a gay guy to death), does it mean that they should’ve received only one life sentence?
Not totally following you. If they knowingly or with depraved indifference beat a guy to death “just” to rob him, I think they could get the death sentence (absent a plea agreement, which is what I think what happened here, hence the gag order).
I suspect the states enjoy a fair amount of latitude in defining enhancing and mitigating circumstances for sentencing (though the S.C. has monkeyed around with this).
I read about the criminals’ real intentions as well. It was something new to me, but it in the end it makes no difference to me.
When Shepard died, I ran around frantically arranging a candle-light vigil in his memory. Was successful - one of the largest gatherings on campus.
What shocked me then and even now is less why this was done and more how it was done. It was inhumane, brutal, cruel. Even today I cannot read any account of Shepard’s suffering because of the rage and emotion that wells up. No human should have to go through that.
If this was because of drugs, it gives the State more ammo to expend every effort to crack down on such vile substances that turn animals of humans. If this was done because of homophobia, it gives society a mandate to command its people to refrain from lifting their hands against others because of some silly, little issue like sexual orientation. Either way, this crime was and is a call for action.
This is not to say that Shepard may have been totally innocent. But he could not have done anything to deserve such a death.
Huerta: Eh. “Life” doesn’t always mean, you know, life. As in, “die in your prison cell.” Or in the prison infirmary. I guess two life sentences would increase the possibility of their actually dying in prison, unless for some reason Wyoming judges can’t add something like, “…without possibility of reprieve or parole…” to a convicted person’s sentence.
Basically, I’m saying that, regardless of motivation (and yes, I know intent plays a huge role in determining a crime’s severity) I think that their action alone merit life without parole/two life sentences/death penalty.
Adding the qualifier “for beating a gay guy to death with malicious intent” is superfluous, IMO.
I had hoped my sarcasm would shine through, but the rolleyes smiley is the closest we have to a sarcasm smiley; but it doesn’t always translate.
Oddly enough, I posed this very question on the SDMB ages ago: suppose, I asked, the two creeps who killed Matthew Sheppard said, “Oh, was he gay? We had no idea- we were just high and looking to mess with somebody. He just looked like a little runt wh wouldn’t put up much of a fight.”
What then, I asked? Would that be a more admirable motive for murder? Are misanthropes to be treated more leniently than homophobes?
At the time I asked the question, I assumed the killers were homophobes. Now that it appears they weren’t, are they entitled to a reduced sentence? Is their murder of Matthew Shepard less heinous, now that it appears they were killing him out of general meanness, and not prejudice against gays?
This simply underscores the pointlessness of hate crime legislation once the crimes involved are as serious as murder. I believe there IS a place for hate crime legislation, but such legislation is helpful only when we’re dealing with relatively minor crimes (spray painting a swastika on a synagogue is worse than spraypainting your favorite rapper’s name on a subway car; egging the house of the only black family in a white neighborhood is worse than toilet papering a random family’s house on Halloween; you get the idea). But murder is murder, and no motive for that is better or worse than any other.
I agree about the motivation - it’s still a well-known story that people will pay attention to.
Like Neurotik, I remember reading a long piece about Laramie, the lives of the killers, the meth scene - I wish I could remember the name of the author - but her research led to the conclusion it was pretty unlikely this was really a hate crime. More likely it was the work of two kids who were prone to violence and stoned out of their minds on a drug that made matters worse.
Why take the touble to torture a guy is you just were robbing him? I don’t buy it. Maybe they’re looking for a reduced sentence or maybe more attenetion.
Some people like to torture others for the fun of it. No mystery here.
If someone is going to claim that this crime was motivated by Shepard’s sexuality, then the burden of proof rests on that person’s shoulders. “But of course his homosexuality was the issue!” is not the default position here.
At the time of the trail the killers said they killed Shepard because he was gay and made a pass at them. It is only now that they and others around the crime have begun to change their stories.
Exactly. This is not just idle speculation pulled from someone’s ass–this was the defense at the trial. If they didn’t want people to think that it was motivated by Shepard’s sexuality, they shouldn’t have used that as their defense.
I don’t necessarily believe that a murderer should be punished more harshly if his crime is motivated by hatred for a class of people than for any other reason. I do, however, like the additional jurisdiction that hate crime legislation offers, to counteract the possibility of finding a juror (or even a judge) who is sympathetic to that hatred. I suspect that the chances of a random jury of twelve containing one person who would agree with a “queer needed killin’” defense would be high enough to surprise most of us, and I’m continually shocked by the number of people who feel that violence is justified in response to a homosexual advance. If “hate crime” classification can guard against such things, then I’m all for it.
Ah, well, if that’s what they said, then there you go. I had thought that the “Shepard made a pass at them” story was promulgated by witnesses and not by the defendants - which just goes to show how much I’ve followed the story.
How does hate crime classification defend against this? Folks who would let a murderer off just because the victim was gay aren’t going to suddenly say, “Oh well, it was a hate crime, guess that queer didn’t need killin’ after all.”
My understanding of hate crime laws (in general) was not to add extra punishment but rather to reclassify them as federal crimes. I realize legislation will vary from state to state, and I am not familiar with Wyoming’s laws in particular, but it seems to me that arguments about how many life sentences they deserved are specious or moot.
Furthermore, I have always considered hate crime laws to be a form of anti-terrorism. If a single characteristic of a person was the foremost or sole factor in a crime, everyone else with that characteristic is made to feel terrorized, IMHO.